One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National Review reported that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals….Now add hundreds of billions for welfare and remittances! MICHAEL BARGO, Jr…… for the AMERICAN THINKER.COM

Thursday, June 16, 2016

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE 'RECONQUISTA' OF MEX-OCCUPIED CALIFORNIA IS NOTHING BUT LA RAZA PROPAGANDA, THE MEXICANS NOW OCCUPY THE ONCE GOLDEN STATE, WHICH IS NOW A LA RAZA WELFARE COLONY AND DRUG MARKET FOR THE NARCOMEX CARTELS.

WE CAN THANK THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S SURRENDER TO LA RAZA SUPREMACY

June 16, 2016

'Reconquista' is the wrong term

During the recent anti-Trump
riots in San Jose, an angry-looking Latino held up a hand-lettered sign that
said, “Trump, this is Mexico! You are not welcome on Native Mexican
soil.” Other protestors threw eggs and rocks, burned American flags, and
waved Mexican flags. Five persons have been charged with felony assault
with a deadly weapon. The riots were part of what some Latinos call the
“Reconquista.” It harks back to the fifteenth century, when the Spanish
reclaimed the Iberian peninsula from the Moors. As I shall show, however,
California is not native Mexican soil.

The California Reconquista is
fueled by false information in the history books. They read as if
American forces invaded California when it was ruled by Mexico. In fact,
Mexico's governance of California had ended one and a half years earlier, and
Mexican rule had been brief. Here is the true story.

In 1820, Mexico had a Spanish governor, and the people living there were called
“Mexicans.” At that time, California had a Spanish governor, and the
people living there were called “Californios.” There was little
interaction between the two provinces. Land travel between them was
discouraged by hostile Native Americans. Seldom would a ship proceed from
Mexico to California and if it did, the ship would stop first at Hawaii.

In 1821, the Mexicans overthrew
Spanish rule and became independent. In the following year, Mexico laid
claim to California. The Spanish governor in the capital of Monterey
declared the claim “absurd.” He expected help to come from Spain, but
none came. The governor departed, and the sparsely populated province
submitted to Mexican rule. But not for long. The Californios and
the Mexicans were not compatible. There were revolts in which Californio
governors temporarily replaced Mexican governors. Few Mexicans moved to
California.

In 1842, Mexico tried to sell the
ungovernable California to the king of Prussia. His ambassadors in London
and Washington urged purchase, but the king declined the offer on the advice of
a famous explorer, Alexander von Humboldt.

In February of 1845, a Mexican
governor was ousted by Californios for the last time. The new governor
was Pio de Jesus Pico, a Los Angeles businessman of partly African descent.
Erroneously, Pico often is referred to as the “last Mexican governor of
California.” In fact, he was a Californio born near Los Angeles during
the period of Spanish rule. The Mexican governance of California had
lasted, off and on, for only twenty-three years.

The leading Californios debated
how they could be safe from foreign aggression. Governor Pico recommended
a British protectorate. Noting that France was Catholic, General Jose
Antonio Castro recommended a French protectorate. General Mariano
Guadelupe Vallejo urged annexation to the United States. In that case, he
said, the Californios would not be “subjects.” They would be
“fellow-citizens ... prosperous, happy, and free.”

In 1846, after the
Mexican-American War broke out, the U.S. Navy arrived in Monterey on July 1 and
hoisted the American flag. It was a timely arrival. A British fleet
showed up on July 16–too late. The British had
planned to seize California as a means of collecting Mexican debts.

In sum, Mexican rule was brief,
much interrupted, and unwelcome. California was destined to become
British or American. It was not native Mexican soil.

During the recent anti-Trump
riots in San Jose, an angry-looking Latino held up a hand-lettered sign that
said, “Trump, this is Mexico! You are not welcome on Native Mexican soil.”
Other protestors threw eggs and rocks, burned American flags, and waved
Mexican flags. Five persons have been charged with felony assault with a
deadly weapon. The riots were part of what some Latinos call the
“Reconquista.” It harks back to the fifteenth century, when the Spanish
reclaimed the Iberian peninsula from the Moors. As I shall show, however,
California is not native Mexican soil.

The California Reconquista is
fueled by false information in the history books. They read as if
American forces invaded California when it was ruled by Mexico. In fact,
Mexico's governance of California had ended one and a half years earlier, and
Mexican rule had been brief. Here is the true story.

In 1820, Mexico had a Spanish
governor, and the people living there were called “Mexicans.” At that
time, California had a Spanish governor, and the people living there were
called “Californios.” There was little interaction between the two
provinces. Land travel between them was discouraged by hostile Native Americans.
Seldom would a ship proceed from Mexico to California and if it did,
the ship would stop first at Hawaii.

In 1821, the Mexicans overthrew
Spanish rule and became independent. In the following year, Mexico laid
claim to California. The Spanish governor in the capital of Monterey
declared the claim “absurd.” He expected help to come from Spain, but
none came. The governor departed, and the sparsely populated province
submitted to Mexican rule. But not for long. The Californios and
the Mexicans were not compatible. There were revolts in which Californio
governors temporarily replaced Mexican governors. Few Mexicans moved to
California.

In 1842, Mexico tried to sell the
ungovernable California to the king of Prussia. His ambassadors in London
and Washington urged purchase, but the king declined the offer on the advice of
a famous explorer, Alexander von Humboldt.

In February of 1845, a Mexican
governor was ousted by Californios for the last time. The new governor
was Pio de Jesus Pico, a Los Angeles businessman of partly African descent.
Erroneously, Pico often is referred to as the “last Mexican governor of
California.” In fact, he was a Californio born near Los Angeles during
the period of Spanish rule. The Mexican governance of California had
lasted, off and on, for only twenty-three years.

The leading Californios debated
how they could be safe from foreign aggression. Governor Pico recommended
a British protectorate. Noting that France was Catholic, General Jose
Antonio Castro recommended a French protectorate. General Mariano
Guadelupe Vallejo urged annexation to the United States. In that case, he
said, the Californios would not be “subjects.” They would be
“fellow-citizens ... prosperous, happy, and free.”

In 1846, after the Mexican-American
War broke out, the U.S. Navy arrived in Monterey on July 1 and hoisted the
American flag. It was a timely arrival. A British fleet showed up
on July 16–too late. The British had
planned to seize California as a means of collecting Mexican debts.

In sum, Mexican rule was brief,
much interrupted, and unwelcome. California was destined to become
British or American. It was not native Mexican soil.

"Despite
the fact that the majority of documented hispanics oppose illegal immigration,
as do the majority of Americans, Aztlan and La Raza
race hate groups have become the self-appointed voice for a separatist movement
that threatens a violent overthrow of the Constitutional system and a barbaric
program of ethnic cleansing.

OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS: SERVE THE RICH, DESTROY THE MIDDLE CLASS, AND EXPAND THE LA RAZA SUPREMACY MEXICAN WELFARE STATE ON AMERICA'S BACKS!HILLARIA'S MESSAGE TO WALL STREET:"Throughout the primary campaign, Clinton has upheld Obama’s legacy as President and maintained that she will continue his economic policies."

SEN. SANDERS SURRENDERS TO HER CORRUPTNESS…
Will he serve her Wall Street Paymasters also?

US economy adds fewest jobs in five years

By Evan Blake 4 June 2016

In another indication of a deepening slump in the US economy, the Labor Department reported yesterday that the US economy added only 38,000 jobs in May, the lowest monthly job growth since September 2010.

The report was released merely two days after US President Barack Obama declared in a speech in Elkhart, Indiana that the belief, widespread in the US population, that the economy is doing poorly is a “myth.”

The latest figures sharply contradict such claims. Summarizing the findings of the report, Laura Rosner, an economist at BNP Paribas, told the Associated Press, “The shockingly low payrolls gain in May provides further evidence that the economy is showing clear signs of slowing.”

In addition to the dismal rate of payrolls growth, the Labor Department said a massive 459,000 people left the workforce last month. In other words, 12 times more people gave up looking for work than got a job last month. Simultaneously, the Labor Department reported the number of people working part-time, but who would prefer to have full-time work, increased by 468,000 in May.

The labor force participation rate decreased by 0.2 percentage points, after an earlier 0.2 percent decline in April, to a nearly four-decade low of 62.6 percent.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also revised downward the figures for March and April, which overestimated job growth by a combined 59,000 jobs. Together, the number of jobs created each month between March and May was 116,000, a marked decline from last year’s monthly average of nearly 230,000.

According to the Labor Department, the construction sector lost 15,000 jobs last month, mining and logging industries lost 11,000 jobs and the manufacturing sector lost 10,000 jobs. As with previous months, the jobs added were centered in the low-wage service sector.

The past several quarters have shown slow economic growth in the US. Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of just 0.8 percent in the first quarter of 2016, down from 1.4 percent in the fourth quarter of last year.

The Institute for Supply Management also released a report Friday that rated the US non-manufacturing index as falling to 52.9 from 55.7 in April.

Many major US department store chains, including Macy’s, Kohl’s, JCPenney and Nordstrom, reported sharp declines in sales and profits during the first quarter of 2016.

The Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee, which sets monetary policy, meets again on June 14-15. Many had anticipated that the Fed would raise the benchmark federal funds rate, but May’s unexpectedly poor jobs report makes it more likely that the Fed will hold off on raising interest rates until at least its next meeting in late July.

The employment figures were released just days before the crucial California Democratic Primary. In recent weeks, Bernie Sanders has narrowed the gap with frontrunner Hillary Clinton, trailing by only one point among eligible voters in a Thursday Los Angeles Times poll.

Throughout the primary campaign, Clinton has upheld Obama’s legacy as President and maintained that she will continue his economic policies.Even aside from the most recent jobs report, Obama’s claim that “almost every economic measure” has improved under his administration is a patent absurdity.

In reality, the US working class has experienced an unrelenting assault on its living standards over the past eight years. The so-called economic “recovery” under Obama has entailed the creation of part-time and poverty-wage jobs, the slashing of employee benefits, and a continuation of mass unemployment.
A report published earlier this year by Princeton University and the RAND Corporation found that all job growth in the US over the last decade was accounted for by the growth of “alternative work arrangements,” or people working as independent contractors, temps, through contract agencies or on-call. Such jobs usually entail minimal job security, health benefits and vacation days.

Between 2005 and 2015, the percentage of the workforce in such contingent arrangements rose from 10.1 percent to 15.8 percent, placing nearly one in six full-time workers in a contingent status. Of these contingent workers, a staggering 32 percent are forced to hold multiple jobs to make ends meet, due to the lack of job security and benefits.

The growth of poverty-wage employment, particularly for youngpeople, has resulted in sweeping demographic changes. A Pew report released last week found that for the first time in 130 years, Americans aged 18-24 are more likely to be living at home than with a spouse or partner.

As a result of eight years of near-zero interest rates, bank bailouts, and “quantitative easing” money printing operations, the wealth of the US financial oligarchy has soared, and social inequality has widened dramatically. Under Obama, 95 percent of all income gains have gone to the richest 1 percent of society, while median household income has declined by thousands of dollars.

In one of the starkest indications of social distress, the death rate in the US increased last year for the first time since 2005, fueled by increases in the rate of death from Alzheimer’s, heart disease, drug overdoses and suicides.

These figures make clear that, far from being a “myth,” working people have seen an enormous reversal in their living standards during the Obama presidency. For all the declarations by Obama and the Democrats that things are better than ever, the vast and pervasive economic distress felt by millions of people is fueling the growth of political opposition, expressed in the ongoing popular support for the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, who claims to be a socialist, as well as the growth of social struggles by the working class, such as last month’s strike by nearly 39,000 communication workers at Verizon.

Recent satisfaction levels are particularly low compared with the high levels of satisfaction measured in the mid-1980s under President Ronald Reagan, in 1991 after the first Gulf War, in the late 1990s and after 9/11.

AMNESTY: THE PLOT AGAINST THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED AND PASS ALONG THE TRUE COST OF MEXICO'S OCCUPATION, LOOTING, WELFARE AND CRIME TIDAL WAVE TO THE SAME MIDDLE CLASS.

OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS AND THE FINALFALL OF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS

"The country is now at the edge of an abyss following years of obfuscation, unaccountability, subterfuge, and law evasion by the Obama administration that have numbed much of its citizenry into a kind of base “group think acceptance” of government corruption and abuse of power. Resetting Americans’ trust in government needs to start with holding people in high office, like Hillary Clinton, accountable."

"Paralleling the ever more extreme concentration of wealth, American politics is acquiring an increasingly dynastic and nepotistic character, traditionally a hallmark of the decay of bourgeois democracy. In a country of 350 million people, the Democratic Party could do no better than nominate as its presidential candidate an individual whose political career is based, to start with, on the fact that she is the wife of a former president."

AMNESTY: THE PLOT AGAINST THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED AND PASS ALONG THE TRUE COST OF MEXICO'S OCCUPATION, LOOTING, WELFARE AND CRIME TIDAL WAVE TO THE SAME MIDDLE CLASS.

EVERY DAY, IN EVERY WAY, BARACK OBAMA HAS SABOTAGED AMERICA'S BORDERS AND LAWS TO BUILD HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS.

Average Family Today Has Less Income Than When Obama Took Office

What’s the most important economic statistic to gauge a society’s prosperity?
I often use per-capita economic output when comparing nations.
But for ordinary people, what probably matters most is household income. And if you look at the median household income numbers for the United States, Obamanomics is a failure. According to the Census Bureau’s latest numbers, the average family today has less income (after adjusting for inflation) than when Obama took office.
In an amazing feat of chutzpah, however, the President is actually arguing that he’s done a good job with the economy. His main talking point is that the unemployment rate is down to 4.7 percent.
Yet as discussed in this Blaze TV interview, sometimes the unemployment rate falls for less-than-ideal reasons.

In effect, the President airbrushed history and then tried to take credit for something that happened, at least in part, because of policies he opposed.
Wow.
One final point. I was asked in the interview which policy deserves the lion’s share of the blame for the economy’s tepid performance and weak job numbers.
I wasn’t expecting that question, so I fumbled around a bit before choosing Obamacare.
But with the wisdom of hindsight, I think I stumbled onto the right answer. Yes, the stimulus was a flop, and yes, Dodd-Frank has been a regulatory nightmare, but Obamacare was (and continues to be) a perfect storm of taxes, spending, and regulatory intervention.
And even the Congressional Budget Office estimates it has cost the economy two million jobs.Daniel J. Mitchell is a top expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy at the Cato Institute. Mitchell is a strong advocate of a flat tax and international tax competition.

Many workers and youth who rallied behind Sanders will come to see his campaign as proof ofthe impossibility of transforming the Democratic Party, one of the two main parties of Wall Street and the military/intelligence establishment, into aninstrument of progressive change, and the essentially reactionary role of all those who claim

otherwise.

Hillary & Billary….. Operating like third world dictators sucking in the bribes from every criminal and sleaze bag they know and they know all of them!

Despite the fact that the majority of documented Hispanics oppose illegal immigration, as do the majority of Americans, Aztlan and La Raza race hate groups have become the self-appointed voice for a separatist movement that threatens a violent overthrow of the Constitutional system and a barbaric program of ethnic cleansing. This is held up by the media as 'diversity' and to vociferously oppose it is scorned as racism. Aztlan and Mecha groups advocate killing all whites and blacks and driving them out of the southern states by means of brutal ethnic cleansing.

The second comes from “Shep” on a Disqus comment at Scott Adams’s blog. It is particularly poignant today, in the wake of Hillary calling out the Saudis for funding radical Islam, and posing as a friend of gays:

AND THE TAKING OF THE GOVERNMENT BY THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY OF LA RAZA “The Race”.

Now we have Candidate Clinton promising even more aggressive executive immigration amnesty than Obama. Not only has Hillary vowed to defend Obama's executive immigration actions, she said "if Congress continues to refuse to act, as president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further." She added, "That is just the beginning!"

"The facts known about Secretary Hillary Clinton’s actions surrounding the use of an unsecure private email server for conducting State Department business, show that she acted with reckless disregard of the security interests of the United States and violated some ten federal statutes."

Clinton Cash investigates how Bill and Hillary Clinton went from being “dead broke” after leaving the White House to amassing a net worth of over $150 million, with $2 billion in donations to their foundation, wealth accumulated during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State through lucrative speaking fees and contracts paid for by foreign companies and Clinton Foundation donors.

At the conclusion of an article on the State Department IG’s findings that Hillary Clinton brazenly violated federal record-keeping statutes, National Review’s Andrew McCarthy asks:

“What are we to make of Mrs. Clinton’s public posturing that of course [emphasis in original] she is prepared to cooperate -- and encourages her subordinates to cooperate -- with government investigators?”

The question is obviously rhetorical, but one problem with rhetorical questions is that we don’t always really answer them, other than shrugging. So allow me in this case to answer that question. What we are to make of Mrs. Clinton is that she is an accomplished career criminal -- and I mean that literally, not rhetorically.

Like a lot of accomplished career criminals Mrs. Clinton has committed so many high crimes and misdemeanors, and gotten away with them to boot, that we tend to forget (or ignore) past acts of lawlessness because the new ones keep on coming. And like skillful felons the world over, Mrs. Clinton takes full advantage of this very human inclination, by sloughing off past accusations as“old news” or the result of biases that have emerged through“misunderstandings.” Anyone who has worked in criminal justice has seen this phenomenon, where repeat offenders get to know police, prosecutors and judges so well that law enforcement tires of them -- maybe even comes to like them a bit -- and so cut the career criminal a break. And the clever crook knows this tendency and plays upon it. It’s this dynamic that led to the development of “three strikes” laws, so such crooks don’t receive unearned or plainlymanipulated sympathy.

Donald Trump’s recentfaux pasregarding the long-ago apparent suicide of Clinton confidant Vince Foster is an example of this process. Trump, as is his wont, made a poorly thought-out off-the-cuff remark suggesting that Foster was murdered, and that Clinton was behind it. Since this is one crime that the Clintons probably did not commit, Trump’s remark was foolish, since, like accusations about Obama’s birthplace, it just gives the leftist media ammunition to belittle legitimate criticisms. But it was also understandable -- Trump didn’t claim the accusations were true, only that he was aware of them, and given we’re talking about Hillary Clinton, well…

But Trump needn’t speculate about Foster’s fate, nor should we. Rather than trying to pin Foster’s death on Hillary, he ought to remind the public of her other crimes, and launch focused attacks on her documented and provable malfeasances, starting with her cattle futures trading windfall/bribe. Today, Hillary’s cattle trading is usually mentioned casually as an indicator of how far back Hillary’s corruption goes, but that crime (from 1978/79) itself is worth revisiting in some detail.

Like most of Hillary’s wrongdoing, she benefits from the fact that her schemes are complex, superficially boring, and often hard for the general public to understand. In that sense it’s understandable that Trump fell into the trap of talking about the Foster case. Murder and/or suicide is comprehensible and sexy, trading livestock is not. That doesn’t change the fact that Hillary’s $100,000 trading windfall cannot reasonably be seen as anything but a criminal bribe.

Anybody that knows anything about trading commodities understands that what Hillary claims to have done -- turn an initial $1000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 profit ten months later -- is as a practical matter almost impossible even for the most skilled commodity operator, and absolutely impossible for a neophyte such as Hillary was. My father traded commodities for decades, was very smart, reasonably good at it, and even ran an advisory service for a time. He managed to stay ahead but not by much. Three quarters of commodity traders lose money, the vast majority inexperienced traders like Clinton.

An inexperienced blackjack player would have a much, much easier time turning a $1000 stake at a casino into $100,000, than would a similarly situated person in futures trading, though of course such a blackjack run would require almost perfect play. What Hillary claims to have done would have required divine intervention, or a criminal scheme. Since I am fairly sure the Almighty is not on her side, we need to go with the latter.

After the trading scheme became public in the 1990s, Clinton and her defenders tried to explain the windfall away as a combination of Hillary’s native intelligence, luck, and good advice. But a scholarly paper put out in 1994 by the Journal of Economics and Financecalculated that the odds of gaining such a profit in ten months under conditions at the time, and giving the investor the benefit of the doubt, at 31 trillion to 1. By way of comparison, the odds that the blood detected on O.J. Simpson’s notorious glove (found after the murders at Simpson’s estate), did not contain the blood of his victims is between 21 and 41 billion chances in one. Thus, at least by this metric, it is far, far more likely that O.J. Simpson is innocent of the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, than it is that Hillary’s cattle futures profit was not illegal. Even a bored, inattentive and not very bright electorate can understand that. And I understand that some people never will understand it no matter what, which is why O.J. walked.

The futures trading incident is also notable in that after the scheme became a legal and political issue, Hillary’s cool reaction to it proved to be her coming out party as an effective mob boss who could handle herself under intense pressure and scrutiny. She was widely praised in the liberal press for being forthcoming and unflappable, while also giving no ground, a pattern that would repeat itself again and again, up to the present.

Hillary’s cattle futures bribery scheme dates back to the same time frame as she began her other introductory criminal scam, Whitewater. From there came the Rose Law Firm billing records scandal (related to Whitewater), Travelgate, Hillary’s libels against victims of her husband’s predatory sexual behavior, Troopergate (related to Bill’s dalliances), the White House’s missing furniture, the friendly mortgage for the house in Chappaqua, a carpet-bagging Senate run, the Clinton Foundation, pay for play speeches, Benghazi, and the email scandals. (I may have missed one or two others.)

It is a breathtaking history of scandal and criminality that might make Tony Soprano blush, and is certainly the envy of real life mob bosses cooling their heels in penitentiaries jail across the nation. Hillary simply has almost all the traits (and history) of a successful mob boss, including a close knit group of loyal confederates who operate under a code of omerta.

Trump has many flaws, but to my knowledge he is not an outright criminal, much less a mob boss. Trump needn’t concern himself with Vince Foster. He does need to thoughtfully and aggressively hone his attack on Hillary’s enduring criminality. There is plenty to work with.